[Tagging] Deprecation - waterway=riverbank vs water=river

Sat Feb 13 14:32:52 UTC 2021

+1

On 12/02/2021 15:00, Martin Machyna wrote:
>
> I don't see how this is a relevant argument for anything. water=river 
> can accommodate intermittent or seasonal properties just fine.
>
> This is not a grammar exercise. Tags are just placeholders and not 
> some dictionary definitions.
>
>
>
> On 11.2.21 5:46 , Warin wrote:
>> On 11/2/21 1:40 am, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>>> (I suppose you mean by "redundant" that they have the same meaning)
>>>
>>> From the purely practical point of view:
>>> If they have the same meaning and one of them is used twice as much 
>>> as the other and, in addition, it needs only one tag and the other 
>>> one needs two, I would stick with waterway=riverbank .
>>> BTW waterway=riverbank is still today  JOSM preset
>>> The statement " `waterway=*` is predominantly used to indicate the 
>>> the location and topology of flowing waters," is in contradiction 
>>> with the actual use and the wiki page
>>> waterway is not only for flowing water, but also for 
>>> waterway=dam|weir|lock_gate|dock|boat_yard|water_point|fuel|milestone|sluice_gate
>>
>>
>> There are also intermittent waterways and seasonal waterways.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> And for intuitivity, waterway=riverbank to me seems better than 
>>> water=river
>>
>>
>> Particularly so when the 'river'/'river bank' only has water about 
>> every 5 to 10 years and then only for a very short period of time, 
>> say a few days.
>>
>>>
>>> If we deprecate one of the two keys, what do we win: additional work 
>>> for many mappers, because as soon as we edit data that contains a 
>>> deprecated key we get a warning, so many that I simply ignore them 
>>> regularly..
>>>
>>> A different thing would be an automated mass-edit, combined with a 
>>> massive information campaign to all mappers, that they have to 
>>> switch habits for a frequent tagging situation.
>>
>>
>> I'll be sticking with waterway=riverbank, thank you.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 at 13:56, <manday at openmail.cc> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hello everyone,
>>>
>>>     this concerns the usage of `waterway=riverbank` and
>>>     `natural=water; water=river` which are currently considered
>>>     equivalent and thus redundant (taking the wiki and observed
>>>     usage as reference). I hope that we can find a consensus on how
>>>     to improve this (certanly minor, but present) nuisance for the
>>>     benefit of simplying the canon (both for mappers & data users).
>>>     Some of us had a short discussion of this matter on IRC, I try
>>>     to incorporate the perspectives that I could make out into the mail.
>>>     There appears to be no disagreement that, due to this being
>>>     redundant (opinions to the contrary have been postulated, but I
>>>     don't know of an actual case where they are not redundant), the
>>>     redundancy would optimally be resolved by removing one or the other.
>>>     Personally, I am of the opinion that `waterway=riverbank` would
>>>     be the candidate for removal, because it has certain
>>>     shortcomings which `water=river` does not:
>>>      1. `waterway=*` is predominantly used to indicate the the
>>>     location and topology of flowing waters, not the extent, but
>>>     `riverbank` does not fit that description
>>>      2. it is, by name a waterWAY, while the extents of a river are
>>>     an area
>>>      3. it refers to bodies of WATER, whereas a riverbank in the
>>>     actual (geographical) sense is not the river's water area, but
>>>     includes a larger margin
>>>     The main point that has been brought up against deprecating
>>>     `riverbank`, so I understood is, is that
>>>      1. People are used to tagging with `riverbank` and habits die hard
>>>      2. There might be objections in particular cases where the tags
>>>     would not be considered equivalent
>>>      3. There might be conflicting tags present, e.g.
>>>     `waterway=riverbank; natural!=water` or `waterway=riverbank;
>>>     water!=river` which would also conflict in automated substitution
>>>     I would like to mention that I think that these arguments apply
>>>     to _any_ deprecation and, in the current case, in both
>>>     directions. They are not arguments in favor of deprecating
>>>     `water=river`, but rather arguments against resolving the
>>>     situation as a whole by deprecating either tag.
>>>
>>>     I have not received any arguments which would actually suggest
>>>     deprecating `water=river` in favor of `waterway=riverbank`.
>>>     Please mention it, if you have any such points!
>>>     Whether or not to deprecate either tag, is probably something
>>>     people with more experience in what this means for "collateral
>>>     damage" have to comment on. I don't have this experience, but I
>>>     would like to say that I think, that compared to other
>>>     deprecation scenarios, this seems to be fairly friendly one with
>>>     little risk of actual problems.
>>>     Thanks for your input and hopefully we can improve this, one way
>>>     or another!
>>>     Cedric
>>>
>>>
>>>     -------------------------------------------------
>>>     This free account was provided by VFEmail.net - report spam to
>>>     abuse at vfemail.net <mailto:abuse at vfemail.net>
>>>
>>>     *ONLY AT VFEmail!* - Use our *Metadata Mitigator*™ to keep your
>>>     email out of the NSA's hands!
>>>     $24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!
>>>     No Bandwidth Quotas!   15GB disk space!
>>>     Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Tagging mailing list
>>>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210213/1a1fe071/attachment.htm>